SPSR Wimps Out

    On July 24th, with no prior announcement, the Society for Planetary SETI Research (SPSR) quietly delivered a report to NASA on the subject of the new Mars Global Surveyor images of the Cydonia region. One day later, the summary of this report was placed on the web at the home site of SPSR member Stanley McDaniel. No mention was made of which NASA officials received the report, and the actual contents of the report were listed but not released to the public.

    The summary, as written by Horace Crater, is a timid document which barely scratches the surface of the stunning anomalies present in the 3 new MGS images. It focuses almost exclusively on the Face, mentioning the other plainly anomalous features of the region only in passing. Some obviously geometric areas supportive of Hoagland's "Arcology" model of the Cydonian monuments and the "Hyperdimensional Physics" hypothesis derived from them, are completely ignored. In addition, Crater misrepresents Hoagland's descriptions by cryptically referring to "speculative individuals" who claimed the city objects were pyramids and that the "City Square" was "a major object of concern". Hoagland of course has proposed the arcology model for at least 5 years now, and the "City Square" is but one of numerous objects cited by him in the "Relationship Model". Crater also ignores the fact that Hoagland - on nationwide radio - asked for images not of the "City Square", but of the "Fortress", "D&M", and the "Cliff". Hardly the act of someone obsessed with the "City Square". As for the "pyramids" reference, the major features of the "City" were given identifiers ("Main Pyramid", "West Pyramid") by architect Robert Fiertek, not by Hoagland.

    The idea seems to be to (falsely) link Hoagland with features or theories not well borne out in the new images (the central mound in the "City Square" is somewhat indistinct and the so-called "pyramids" are obviously not Giza-style colossi) when in fact they are littered with symbolic and overt structures reinforcing his stated concepts. If such "speculative individuals" are so "speculative" (read - not thorough or careful), why the need to lie about their positions?

    The summary also asserts that "As far as we know the work done by SPSR scientists constitutes the only careful study of the
images in relation to the Viking data ... ". This flatly specious statement hinges it's mendacity on the word - "careful". By inserting this single word along with the opening equivocation, Crater is able to sweep aside assessments and enhancements done by Hoagland, Dr. Tom Van Flandern, and others immediately after the release of the images and posted to the internet. All that is required is an evaluation (by SPSR of course) that these studies were not "careful" enough.

    This is merely a variation of Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" non-sequiter. It enables SPSR to ignore the prior work of others while they give credit to various members of their own group for "discoveries" - like the "culturally meaningful" decorations on the "Headpiece". This crass disregard for scholarly conduct is both a chilling indictment of the groups motivations and frankly guys, bad manners. These tendencies to distort the record and obfuscate the assertions of other (rival?) researchers hints that the ultimate goal of SPSR may not be the divination of truth, but rather a scramble for credit.

    The assessments of the "Face" and other objects that actually made it in the report are remarkably banal. SPSR mentions only the most indisputable anomalies of the landforms, (like the symmetry of the Face platform) and do so in a conservative, almost bashful manner. Mark Carlotto continues to refer to the "Face" as "highly eroded" when it is in fact quite remarkably well preserved (far more so than our own earthly Sphinx for instance), and he was even unwilling to acknowledge the sperical "pupil" in the western eye socket despite its presence in (three!) confirming images over three separate missions. Crater then cites a discovery of "considerable importance" - a crater in the area with ice in it! Now, to be fair, the presence of water ice on the surface of Mars has some geologic significance, but compared to the various triangles, hexagons and buildings in the images it is pretty tame. SPSR seems to feel a need to justify further imaging of the region with a "legitimate" geological anomaly. Hardly the bold sort of leadership required to bring such a controversial subject into the mainstream.

    All this adds up to a markedly meek and naive report. It is hard to imagine the question of artificiality of the Cydonian monuments being taken seriously by Dan Goldin or anybody else at NASA who may have received a copy. The three images taken were pulled like teeth from an angry bear, forced by the unprecedented faxing campaign organized by Hoagland and radio talk show host Art Bell. When we finally did get them, they were deliberately degraded and managed to miss key features despite the fact they should have been able to zero in on specific objects with little difficulty (according to SPSR's own reports). Of course, little is made of this poor marksmanship in the new report.

    That would not be a critical issue if NASA director Goldin had kept his promise to provide more images "until everyone is satisfied". SPSR makes no specific mention of this public promise to the American people, preferring to focus instead on a private commitment from Dr. Carl Pilcher to SPSR. This smacks of a country club, exclusionary attitude among the SPSR elite (self-described "serious" Cydonia researchers) and would go a long way to explain their reluctance to confront NASA with the many anomalies on the images. SPSR seems to be more concerned with winning favor with NASA hierarchy than with providing a clear picture to the "unwashed masses" of the general public they are so indifferent to. They could take steps to ameliorate this perception by actually releasing the contents of the report presently reserved for NASA "Eyes Only".

    The implication of these observations is that SPSR, far from being an independent oversight group, is playing an inside game with NASA brass. McDaniel's recent flip-flops on NASA's motives and conduct regarding the Cydonia question appears almost too anxious in its desire to proclaim the process and principals "honest". While "deploring" the conduct of "individual" JPL employees, they fail to point out the obvious, that the PR spin feast after the release of the new "Face" image was a well planned and executed usurpation of the truth, and is entirely consistent with NASA's previous behavior on this issue (as documented by McDaniel himself). After declaring NASA's earlier conduct to be highly suspicious and even "contrary to ... (it's) ... stated policy" in favor of full disclosure of any discoveries of artificial structures in the solar system, McDaniel now seems ready to ascribe the whole thing to misunderstandings and honest mistakes. He has also gone to somewhat extraordinary lengths to discredit a large triangular ruin on the third image swath with a variation of the old "trick of light and shadow" argument he personally did so much to refute.

    SPSR is starting to take on the foul air of a sell out. Far from pushing NASA to keep public commitments or questioning its behavior, they seem to be spending more energy dragging their feet and attacking the agency's harshest critics. The clandestine meetings with top NASA officials, private reports and obfuscation of issues imply a different agenda than the one stated. I suppose this makes me a "speculative individual", but with so many contradictions and so little public information from the organization itself, what am I left to do?

    Ultimately, SPSR's report will be but a mere blip on the radar screen in this now 17 year search for the truth. Let history record that when confronted with confirmation of profound ideas they themselves had advocated, they flinched at the sight of their own shadow, and went whimpering back into their safe, dark hole.

© 1998 MICHAEL BARA